The result is nearly unanimous. The ABC Debate was the lowest point in American politics where no laws (except good taste) were broken. Some are taking to the streets some are writing ABC. More power to them, but it's not going to change anything.

What I'm asking for is something else.

Class divisions on the American version of the internet just got another tier.

I have been struggling for a long time to determine the why of the difficulties Obama has among Latinos in the southwest. Only in New Mexico was it anywhere close to even. More specifically in south west Texas where the familes of my mother (near Laredo) and my father (near Brownsville) are from HRC rung up huge margins.

Before we start, let me say that I consider myself hispanic--and that might just be why I can't figure it out.

I struggled a long time with how to say this. It's really the point of the series and serves as both a reprimand of Republican Hegemony and a warning to our own side about how we need to move forward in the future both at home and abroad.

The problem I identify with power, both for the actor and acted upon, is a lack of control. In Part I, I talked about the consequences of a powerful actor using its power unilaterally. It breeds a feeling of lack of control for the acted upon that can lead to very bad consequences, and uses up a lot of resources for the actor.

In Part II, I talked about the difficulties for the actor in terms of the perceptions of power as opposed to more empirical consequences.

In Part III I will talk about a more abstract danger directly to the actor in regards to using power. The lack of control. This leads to the corruption.

This diary is adapted from a discussion I had at a message board, in the comments at TPM Cafe and a philosophy that was articulated by author Melanie Rawn that I finally understood how to apply to the current situation.

Thanks to joshalot and SusanG for last night's Diary Rescue. My ideas in Part I were based around interactions between states. While you can apply them to congressional control I think a discussion of the consequences of acting multilaterally or unilaterally can be readily made by looking at the effects of the Republican Majority on themselves. In this case substitute "group" for "Hyper Power."

THE PROBLEM: Recap - the Used Upon

The problem with power is that it creates a lack of control for the power the user and the used upon. In the used upon this lack of control creates a feeling of helplessness that can cause hardship for both the used upon and the user.

This diary is adapted from a discussion I had at a message board, in the comments at TPM Cafe and a philosophy that was articulated by author Melanie Rawn that I finally understood how to apply to the current situation.

There are several reasons why working through international organizations and multilateral efforts are preferable to individual national action. Those reasons are wrapped up in theories of when and how to use power. They also depend just as much on process as intent. But this is at it's core a pragmatic argument. It comes from two directions--one is that of self-preservation, the other is that of efficiency. I have decided to talk first about why using multilateral methods are preferable in and of themselves and in Part II to examine why the consequences of power are better dealt with when they result from a multilateral use of power.

A/N: Here is the link to Part II.

Take a look at the title of this article.

Pawlenty: Give health coverage to all kids

Yes that's right, our newly re-elected Republican Governor is now in the words of the Star Tribune "embracing" an issue that the DFL (Minnesota Democrats) used to ride to victory in the 2006 elections cementing near veto-proof control of the legislature.

I began work on this post maybe two weeks ago. It's not much, but in the afterglow of victory it's important to remember where we've been and what happened as we discuss where we're going.

This is kind of a fluffy diary. You know the "Democratic Wave" meme has penetrated the public consciousness when you start seeing advertising incorporating it...

The other day my local paper printed an editorial parroting the conventional wisdom on Ned Lamont's victory. This is a signal of the great schism in the Democratic party, the anti-war voices are gaining control and 2008 will be a replay of 1972.

Below, I reprint my letter and ask for any last minute suggestions before I send it in. Keep in mind that it's already 330 words and that's even a little too long for a LTE.

Suggestions appreciated!

So I'm watching the Colbert Report tonight (August 1 edition) and his guess is TNR's Peter Beinart pushing his book The Good Fight and I frankly am surprised by what I hear. I was present for the discussions of his book, mostly at TPMCafe where he reaches largely the same conclusions those of us who opposed the war reached. Tonight on the Colbert Report he said some things that I cannot believe I heard.